On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On 12/25/09 9:56 PM, John H wrote:
And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.


Well, no worries about that with you. ALL a DNR on your toe would mean
is a net gain for the taxpayers.

In article ,
om says...

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. ?We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it?s not.?"

Another - "Because Dartmouth?s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus?s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth?s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient?s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I've got a DNR and a pump me full of pain killers even if it kills me.
The last thing I want to do is be laying in a hospital bed in pain and
be able to tell anyone I hurt.

Plus, my wife's new boyfriend can't get any of my money.

On Dec 25, 9:56*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene





wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... *extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, you don't want your tax dollars wasted on someone else, but you're
fine with taxpayers paying to keep YOU alive if you so choose?

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene wrote:


".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patientÂ’s life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy isn't
an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep pockets"
is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real and
evaluate the next sentence.....

“If you come into this hospital, we’re not going to let you die....”

Nothing for nothing, but this sounds like a great *teaching* hospital. I
want a doctor that would take my death personally, not one that asks
"What's for lunch?" as they wheel my body out.

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a cold,
hard, business decision.....

It is a complex issue, isn't it? As it stands now, end of life spending
is becoming a great transfer of wealth. Spending $100,000s to prolong a
life a week or two, seems pretty silly, but how to you tell if it will be
a couple of weeks or a couple of decades? A doctor should fight for
every second of life. However, as the customer, I should set the
parameters in which he works. Living wills are a good thing.

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene wrote:


".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient?s life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy isn't
an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep pockets"
is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real and
evaluate the next sentence.....

?If you come into this hospital, we?re not going to let you die....?

Nothing for nothing, but this sounds like a great *teaching* hospital. I
want a doctor that would take my death personally, not one that asks
"What's for lunch?" as they wheel my body out.

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a cold,
hard, business decision.....

It is a complex issue, isn't it? As it stands now, end of life spending
is becoming a great transfer of wealth. Spending $100,000s to prolong a
life a week or two, seems pretty silly, but how to you tell if it will be
a couple of weeks or a couple of decades? A doctor should fight for
every second of life. However, as the customer, I should set the
parameters in which he works. Living wills are a good thing.

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.


"Living wills are a good thing."

Great words. The choice is yours to make, not some money advisor to
the President.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:22:38 -0500, John H
wrote:



"Living wills are a good thing."

Great words. The choice is yours to make, not some money advisor to
the President.

Keep your finances in order so your survivors can keep as much of your
money as possible, so their time here is eased.
Forget about hating politicians and think more about God.
His arms are open, warm, and welcoming.
Life here is a fleeting time, and should be enjoyed by loving and
being loved.
Arguing about politicians in a hellish manner only predicts your
future and eternal place of residence.
Even a hell filled with golfers is better than one filled with
politicians.
But only slightly.

--Vic

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

Why have we been trying to get health care legislation for 60 years?

Other than to control the population what does the health care
legislation do?